Major overhaul in Pentagon spending

[Scam of God]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- Wall Street Journal

It's not enough, but it's a start. It's high damn time that someone strip out the largess that military contractors procure for themselves on the tax-payer's dime.

Mind that you'll never hear 'fiscal conservatives' of the Republican stripe bitch about pouring billions down the black hole of military spending, and yet this decision came from a Republican appointee. I'm happy that at least one of them will put his money where his mouth is, so to speak. 

[Scam of God]

Military spending is not a 'black hole'.  It is vital for the defense of this country.

It is when almost 5% of our GDP is spent on it. The military needs to be stripped down to its barest bones and privatized.

EDIT: Of course you don't like it, but I wouldn't expect a Southern nationalist to. Where else will all the rednecks without marketable skills go, except to shoot things?

[Earth]

The military needs to be stripped down to its barest bones and privatized.

That's hardly a solution if you want things to get better. Privatization, my ass.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Military spending is not a 'black hole'.  It is vital for the defense of this country.

Absolutely.  We shouldn't be cutting defense spending, especially not while we're fighting two wars.  That said, we do need to make sure we aren't wasting money, and it seems like that is what Gates is going for here.

[Scam of God]

The military needs to be stripped down to its barest bones and privatized.

That's hardly a solution if you want things to get better. Privatization, my ass.

The Federal government should not be permitted to retain a monopoly on force. Moreover, I am tired, as a worker and a tax-payer, of money coming out of my pocket to prop up Lockheed and Boeing and funding governmentally-ensured monopolies of their respective fields. Let the pressure of competition force them to work for their bread.

[paul718]

Let the pressure of competition force them to work for their bread.

But there is competition.  For example, when the military orders production of a new airplane, the developers will create a prototype and "bid" for the contract.  At least that's how I think it works.

[Scam of God]

Let the pressure of competition force them to work for their bread.

But there is competition.  For example, when the military orders production of a new airplane, the developers will create a prototype and "bid" for the contract.  At least that's how I think it works.

'Competition' between three producers - Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon - does not a free market make, particularly when the government is in the business of guaranteeing their contracts for all three of them.

It's not especially surprising that Republicans sqwak about something that actually puts their alleged 'free-market' principles to work. After all:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

- Rothbard, The Betrayal of the American Right

[paul718]

Let the pressure of competition force them to work for their bread.

But there is competition.  For example, when the military orders production of a new airplane, the developers will create a prototype and "bid" for the contract.  At least that's how I think it works.

'Competition' between three producers - Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon - does not a free market make, particularly when the government is in the business of guaranteeing their contracts for all three of them.

So if a fourth developer wanted in on the action, the government would ignore them?

[Scam of God]

Let the pressure of competition force them to work for their bread.

But there is competition.  For example, when the military orders production of a new airplane, the developers will create a prototype and "bid" for the contract.  At least that's how I think it works.

'Competition' between three producers - Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon - does not a free market make, particularly when the government is in the business of guaranteeing their contracts for all three of them.

So if a fourth developer wanted in on the action, the government would ignore them?

Certainly. We saw how quickly the Pentagon canceled orders for the KC-45A after Boeing lodged a complaint against Airbus. Such protectionist economic policy is encouraged by the big contractors, under the rubric of "American jobs for American workers".

The present military-industrial complex is a corporatist, cartelist, fascist special interest group fundamentally opposed to the free-market and propped up by the conservative statists in Washington.

[paul718]

Let the pressure of competition force them to work for their bread.

But there is competition.  For example, when the military orders production of a new airplane, the developers will create a prototype and "bid" for the contract.  At least that's how I think it works.

'Competition' between three producers - Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon - does not a free market make, particularly when the government is in the business of guaranteeing their contracts for all three of them.

So if a fourth developer wanted in on the action, the government would ignore them?

Certainly. We saw how quickly the Pentagon canceled orders for the KC-45A after Boeing lodged a complaint against Airbus. Such protectionist economic policy is encouraged by the big contractors, under the rubric of "American jobs for American workers".

The present military-industrial complex is a corporatist, cartelist, fascist special interest group fundamentally opposed to the free-market and propped up by the conservative statists in Washington.

Ah, I wasn't thinking about foreign developers.  I agree with you -- canceling the Airbus contract was ridiculous.  But was it only Republicans who made a stink about it?

[Lunar]

Let the pressure of competition force them to work for their bread.

But there is competition.  For example, when the military orders production of a new airplane, the developers will create a prototype and "bid" for the contract.  At least that's how I think it works.

'Competition' between three producers - Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon - does not a free market make, particularly when the government is in the business of guaranteeing their contracts for all three of them.

So if a fourth developer wanted in on the action, the government would ignore them?

Certainly. We saw how quickly the Pentagon canceled orders for the KC-45A after Boeing lodged a complaint against Airbus. Such protectionist economic policy is encouraged by the big contractors, under the rubric of "American jobs for American workers".

The present military-industrial complex is a corporatist, cartelist, fascist special interest group fundamentally opposed to the free-market and propped up by the conservative statists in Washington.

Not saying I don't agree with you, but surely you see the potential benefit of having domestic military production infrastructure, or at least the skeleton of one that can be expanded upon should the need arise?  A simple positive externality.

[Scam of God]

Let the pressure of competition force them to work for their bread.

But there is competition.  For example, when the military orders production of a new airplane, the developers will create a prototype and "bid" for the contract.  At least that's how I think it works.

'Competition' between three producers - Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon - does not a free market make, particularly when the government is in the business of guaranteeing their contracts for all three of them.

So if a fourth developer wanted in on the action, the government would ignore them?

Certainly. We saw how quickly the Pentagon canceled orders for the KC-45A after Boeing lodged a complaint against Airbus. Such protectionist economic policy is encouraged by the big contractors, under the rubric of "American jobs for American workers".

The present military-industrial complex is a corporatist, cartelist, fascist special interest group fundamentally opposed to the free-market and propped up by the conservative statists in Washington.

Ah, I wasn't thinking about foreign developers.  I agree with you -- canceling the Airbus contract was ridiculous.  But was it only Republicans who made a stink about it?

Mostly, yes, though Ron Wyden opposed it as well. Both parties are statist, in their own ways, but the statism of the Republican Party in this area is vastly more offensive.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can see the benefits of the latter suggestion, yes. But our current military-industrial state, which has been in place since the end of the Second World War, directly circumvent the usual processes of the market; we are harmed because of the government's insistence on corporatism in this area. If these large contractors were exposed to actual competition, they would be forced to produce a superior product to beat their competitors out, or would give way to a manufacturer that did.

[Earth]

The military needs to be stripped down to its barest bones and privatized.

That's hardly a solution if you want things to get better. Privatization, my ass.

The Federal government should not be permitted to retain a monopoly on force.

Which they share with states. I'm no fan of the federal government, but to me, giving private companies a share of the force is a mistake. Private companies/mercenaries exist to ensure their own continuation of power, granting them authority to use force would only complicate matters, and reduce transparency. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then the issue becomes separating the government from the private sector so that they aren't propped up any longer, not privatization. By including private companies in what government monopolizes, it only increases the connection between the two, it doesn't  do away with it.

[The Mikado]

My issue isn't so much with Pentagon spending as with Pentagon waste.  Gates seems to get the point here.  I would have no problem with scrapping the unnecessary and idiotic Missile Defense Shield and replacing it with a payraise and increase in benefits for our men and women in uniform, the people who actually defend America.

[CARLHAYDEN]

My issue isn't so much with Pentagon spending as with Pentagon waste.  Gates seems to get the point here.  I would have no problem with scrapping the unnecessary and idiotic Missile Defense Shield and replacing it with a payraise and increase in benefits for our men and women in uniform, the people who actually defend America.

I realize you have no problem wirh getting rid of the missle defense system because you are opposed to national defense!

[Scam of God]

My issue isn't so much with Pentagon spending as with Pentagon waste.  Gates seems to get the point here.  I would have no problem with scrapping the unnecessary and idiotic Missile Defense Shield and replacing it with a payraise and increase in benefits for our men and women in uniform, the people who actually defend America.

I realize you have no 0problem wirh getting rid of the missle defense system because you are opposed to national defense!

What sort of garbage non-logic is this, you mealy-mouthed pissant? The 'missile defense system' is a monstrous waste of resources, a scientific implausibility, and a pie-in-the-sky superweapon initiated by Saint Reagan to appeal to mouth-breathing Neanderthals who think that all of our security problems can be solved by building a Death Star. It's ineffective, inefficient, and its costs would better serve our needs elsewhere.

That you support it is little wonder: you're another mush-brained Reaganite cultist, like most Republicans. But Saint Reagan was wrong.

[dead0man]

<scans article for mention of StratCom...sees none....breathes sigh of relief>

I'm ok with it.